OPM Disability Retirement: The Winning Argument

Most arguments are not won by sheer force of logical persuasion; for, that would require the assumption that not only does everyone think “logically”, but that everyone also has been versed in the technicalities of propositional and syllogistic logic, has studied them and accepted them as overriding and dominant methodologies of discourse.

We like to harken back to the classical period of civilization’s cradle and cloak our biases with Aristotle’s dictum that we are all “rational animals” — implying thereby that our thought processes are powered by a predetermined set of algorithms characterized by the model of a supercomputer.  Yet, we — as fallible human beings ourselves — instinctively know better.  People do not think, leaving aside argue, by mere logical rules and discourses of such modalities; there are almost always other factors involved, whether of emotional ties, internal egoistical motivations or just the pure and unadulterated need to win at every engagement.

Aside from such human factors, however, is there an “objective” standard that characterizes a “winning argument”?

For Federal Employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, it is essential to put together a FERS Disability Retirement application with this in mind: How to effectively put forth your case with “the winning argument”.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is never there to “rubber stamp” a Federal Disability Retirement application.  They are there to parse, tear apart and potentially undermine, and it is important to recognize the pitfalls and shortcomings of your particular case before putting together arguments that will ultimately win your case.

Consult with an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law today so that you can begin to formulate “the winning argument” that will obtain an approval of your Federal Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: The “uh-oh” moment

They come in various shapes and sizes; sometimes, the “moment” is just after something is said and regret begins to insidiously creep into one’s conscience, knowing that the statement made will come back to haunt.  At other times, it is an event, perhaps beyond one’s control, and the seismic shift of tectonic undercurrents cannot be avoided or ignored.

The calamity comes in sizes and shapes — not necessarily of geometric proportions or dimensions — but of the “shape” of the mistake and the “size” of the mishap, and in comparison to whether or not damage-control can actually be effectuated.

Perhaps it is a simple walk in the forest and you become lost in thought; you look up and realize that you have wandered off from the rest of the group and you have no idea where you are.  You look up at the sun and try to remember whether, as a Tenderfoot or some level of a past Boy Scout, you can recall the position of the sun —or was it the stars?  With no compass and no inkling of what to do, with the grumbling groans of a stomach beginning to fester with hunger, you say to yourself under your breath,”uh-oh.”

Or, you are at some gathering and your boss is standing within earshot and a woman is speaking rudely and obnoxiously at some servers and you say, without thinking, “Who is that obnoxious person speaking so rudely?”  There is silence.  It turns out to be the boss’s wife.  The boss looks at you, and you know that any future promotions, any chance of any advancement of any sort with this company will be obstructed by this person who has sworn to be your enemy forever — even though, in the silence bespoken of everyone standing around, what you said was true and irrefutable.  You mutter to yourself, “uh-oh” — for, even though truth may be a shield against most ills in life, the one time it will not protect you is against a boss who must defend his maiden’s honor.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job or position, it may be time to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be submitted ultimately to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset.

It is a complex process and one where — if attempted without the guidance of an attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law — may be replete with multiple “uh-oh” moments of various shapes and sizes.  Perhaps such “uh-oh” moments will not be like the seismic calamities of being lost in the forest, or even of offending the boss into becoming an enemy-for-life; but as OPM is known to nit-pick and try everything to deny one’s Federal Disability Retirement application, it is best to try and minimize every “uh-oh” moment so that the “uh-oh” is instead replaced with its corollary: “uh-huh”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: Chaldean and Pythagorean Numerology

Is it a submission to determinism, or is there some hint of validity other than a self-fulfilling prophesy?  Can names, dates and events be translated into a numerical construct such that predictability of one’s future can be ascertained?

The differences between the two are apparently substantive; the algorithms and numbered “personalities” are altered when the spectrum of equations (1 through 8 under the Chaldean system, and the addition of the next number in sequence under the Pythagorean methodology); and under the Pythagorean Numerology, the system pays greater attention to the full name at birth rather than to the nickname daily used by an individual, where weighted significance is granted upon an emphasis of letters included.

Historically, the Chaldean system has remained staid since the times of Babylon, whereas the Pythagorean Numerology has evolved into modernity, with minor changes and methodological alterations utilized to adapt to modern day applicability.  Both are forms of ancient Astrology and Palmistry, where the interaction between the novice who approaches for foretelling encounters a “system” utilizing numerical alignment, predestined aura and the wisdom of the one who is schooled in the ancient cosmos of rational defiance.

Is it all puff and nonsense?  Perhaps; but of what percentage of our own beliefs constitute a similar system of mystical ambivalence?  Do we read the horoscope?  Are some days more hapless than others?  Do dogs bay at the full moon, and do wolves and horses run wild in their full light of darkness?  Or, when Mars is aligned with the satellites unseen, when the reflection of a full moon’s embrace upon a pond’s quietude in twilight’s shadow, are there greater crimes of the soul committed?  Why are streets filled with rows upon rows of Palmists where long lines of anticipatory trembling and drops of sweat tickle down the side of the armpit while awaiting the foretelling of our soul’s destination?

Yes, for some, it is mere fun after a night of drinking to dare one another to have the inner essence searched and revealed; and yet we live still within the confines of our own mystical abandonments, do we not?  Do we curse the universe for the bad day we experience, or buy a lottery ticket despite the numerical odds of wasting that dollar?  Is science the pinnacle of human achievement that squeezes out the possibility of gnomes, hobbits and angels who fly in the midst of foggy mornings to garner the sins of fallen souls?

Yes, Chaldean and Pythagorean numerology are systems largely outdated and unmasked as unscientific, largely because we have replaced them with paradigms that are acceptable to modernity.  But mysteries still abound.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits because of a medical condition which impacts or otherwise prevents the Federal or Postal employee from continuing in one’s chosen career, the question with the background of Chaldean and Pythagorean Numerology is the following:  What methodology are you going to adopt and apply in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal disability Retirement benefits?  Is it thoughtful, methodological, sequential?  Is it based upon current legal precedents?  Do you understand the pitfalls and the underlying import by the cunning questions asked on Standard Form 3112A?  Or, is it tantamount to Palmistry and a reliance upon an outmoded mystical aura of Chaldean or Pythagorean Numerology?

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement: The Court of Sycophants

The word itself is a linear sequence of consonants and vowels which delight the linguistic palate of parallelism between sound and meaning; rolling off of the tongue, it begins with the soft purr of the ‘s’, then slides midway into the harsh and guttural clash of a germanic cough, as if something untoward has been stuck in the center of one’s throat which needs to be cleared, like phlegm gathered in the mucous membranes of the respiratory passages; then flows to the end and drifts off into a quietude of irrelevance, disregard and dismissal, as the pointed meaning of application coincides with the diminishing utterance of fading signification.

In feudal times, when kings and princes of minor fiefdoms pockmarked the divided provinces of Europe and Asia, the gathering of sycophants pervaded each hour with daily tributes of flowery adjectives added effortlessly in conjunction with backstabbing motivations; the smiles of agreement and infusion of words to puff up the royal kingdom were offset by the murderous rage hidden in the dark corridors of dungeons where the abyss of human cruelty and malevolence resided with unfettered and ravenous appetite.

Does the modern presence of such and the like represent a fading vestige of that former calumny of bacterial servitude, or merely a reflection of the true nature of man’s essence?  The court of sycophants does not exist merely in dusty books of historical irrelevance; it survives in small pockets of sibling rivalries where inheritances are favored by means of embellished compliments combined with fading cognitive capacity for recognition of the distinction between words and sincerity; and in workplaces where no hostages are taken when one’s livelihood is at stake.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are intimately familiar with the darkened hearts of sycophants, there are more colorful words used to describe them — as in the kissing of another’s behind; but whether one uses the original one or a replacement of a more informal vernacular, the meaning all amounts to the same.  Especially, when a medical condition begins to impacts the Federal or Postal employee’s ability and capacity to perform at the same level as before, the wide range of sycophants begin to make their appearance.

Somehow, denigration of others is believed to elevate one’s own status and stature, and indeed, the feudal court of sycophants was based upon that system of favoritism and derisive discourse.

For the Federal or Postal employee who suffers from a medical condition, however, such that filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management becomes necessary, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the escape from the constant backbiting and backstabbing becomes necessary not only to maintain and further one’s health and well-being, but is also a recognition that one has lost the favor of the court itself, and it becomes incumbent upon the Federal and Postal employee to recognize that the Court of Sycophants has been powdering the nose not of the king’s face, but of the emperor whose clothes has disappeared and where the cheeks which quiver with frolicking laughter are at the wrong end of the anatomical map.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Disability Retirement Attorney: Doldrums

It is an actual pocket of calm in areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, where maritime sailors dreaded in days of yore because they presented calm and quietude when the necessity for winds to power the sails of movement suddenly died and disappeared.  One could be trapped for weeks, and sometimes months, when the doldrums hit.

In modern vernacular, of course, they represent a parallel metaphor — of that state of emotional inactivity and rut of life, where melancholy and gloominess overwhelms.  Sometimes, such despair and despondency is purely an internal condition; other times, it is contributed by circumstances of personal or professional environment.

For the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Worker who suffers from the former because of a medical condition which leads to a state of dysphoria, the need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits often commingles with the latter, precisely because the internal and external are inevitably interconnected.  The emotional doldrums become exacerbated by the toxic environment engendered and propagated by reactions engaged in by the agency; and the continuing effect becomes a further cause because of the hostility shown and heightened actions proposed.

How does one escape the doldrums of stale despair?  For the mariner whose power depended upon the winds of change, waiting for altered conditions was the only avenue of hope; for the Federal or Postal worker who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition presents a doldrum of another sort, taking affirmative steps by preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or Postal worker is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is the primary and most effective manner for efficacious change.

Sitting around helplessly like a victim of the vicissitudes of life may have been the way of past responses; for the Federal and Postal employee of modernity, we have greater control over the destiny of one’s future, but to utilize the tools of change requires action beyond mere reflection upon the doldrums of life.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

OPM Disability Law: Arguing by Logical Extension

Often, in legal argumentation, one must simply use the available evidence garnered, and make the best of it.  In many areas of law, especially in administrative legal venues involving Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers, the law favors agencies which hide behind the shield of “efficiency of the Federal Service”, in implementing sanctions, adverse actions, restrictions of leave usage, proposing and deciding upon removals (whether based upon reasons of medical conditions or other basis), etc.

In a typical OPM Disability Retirement case, however, there are just as many procedural and substantive legal precedents which can be utilized effectively to favor the Federal and Postal employee.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who intend upon filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the vast array from the arsenal of statutes, case-law, legal precedents and interpretive advantages gained through years and decades of predecessors to one’s present filing, should be recognized, researched and reapplied at every available opportunity.  For, if the greatest compliment that one can accord to another in the world of art, is one of mimicry and plagiarism, so in the world of law, it is to take the precedent of past legal victories, and to argue to the fullest the logical extension thereof.

That often occurs, unfortunately, only when it is a “hard case“, as opposed to the ones where there is little to no room for argument because of the overwhelming evidence available.  It is, in the end, an unfortunate circumstance that, often the test of brilliance manifests when the case is weak, and one must utilize the capacity available through means of arguing by logical extension, because that is precisely what is left — argument, logic, and extension of the first two principles.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire